tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post667338095117859097..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: Yokes - Ordered LibertyAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-73500224184393815342022-06-25T15:57:47.190-04:002022-06-25T15:57:47.190-04:00Ah, I see in your _Atlantic_ article that he was a...Ah, I see in your _Atlantic_ article that he was an enthusiastic reader of Kant. The overlap makes perfect sense, then. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-82987381627133604982022-06-25T15:46:33.609-04:002022-06-25T15:46:33.609-04:00Immanuel Kant -- from the same geographic area, an...Immanuel Kant -- from the same geographic area, and the Enlightenment era -- makes a very similar argument about freedom. The proof that you are free is not that you can do what you want, he says: any animal does that, and he does not believe they have free will. He thinks they are driven by instinct, so that they are sort-of biological machines: they eat when hungry if food is available, have sex in the rut, etc. Doing what your biology makes you desire to do is not freedom in Kant's view, but enslavement to the irrational biological urge.<br /><br />Freedom is proven instead by your ability to <i>not</i> do what you want. If you can reason to what you ought to do, and do that instead of what your biology is urging you to do, you are free. Unlike the beast, your access to the order of reason allows you to determine what is moral and right, and to will to do that instead of what your body irrationally urges. <br /><br />Thus, reason and morality and freedom all prove to be nearly equivalent terms on his scheme. The moral law ends up being the same for everyone because it is derived from reason, which unlike desire or emotion is itself the same for everyone. No one is forcing you to accept what is right: your own reason suffices to know for yourself. <br /><br />This can seem ironic. Knowing, you must do it because it is right; and if you do the thing you <i>must</i> do, then you are free. If you do the thing you <i>wanted</i> to do, you aren't free but throwing away your freedom in favor of biological determination.<br /><br />But in fact there's a lot of room for real freedom on Kant's schema. Morality only licenses maxims under his discussion of the Categorical Imperative, and maxims can be consistent with many different actions. Once I've reasoned to "A man ought to help another who is in need," I can choose from many different actions that might be ways of helping the needy man. I'm not obligated to do any particular one of them; I'm only obligated to do something that is consistent with the maxim. So I'm really quite free, just not free to do wrong.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.com